BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use. The GPL doesn't keep commercial entities from suing you; it keeps them from adding to your code without giving it back.
Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX. In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source, meaning you must give your work to the public because you based it on somebody else's work.
In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes. In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data; but leave the rights of any third party to their intellectual property in their hands if they choose to augment your software with it.
I believe that Open Source Software would be much easier for the industry to accept (and sodomize) if we stopped trying to armtwist vendors into releasing their own IP and instead let them base their solutions off ours without fear of having their hard work taken away from them "For the Common Good" (Marxism).
To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors, we could reverse the original (later removed) non-advertisement clause of the BSD license, mirrored on OpenSource.com. The original clause is shown below.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Perhaps a suitable replacement would run along the lines of the below.
* The name of the <ORGANIZATION> or the names of its contributors may optionally be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software.
*The name of the <ORGANIZATION> must be displayed in an easily accessible portion of the software, such as with Version information; on its packaging; and on any on-demand information medium about the product such as in a product magazine or on the product Web site.
This would explicitly allow vendors to endorse their products by advertising that they were derived from an OSS product or from work done by a specific person in the community. It would also require the vendor to indicate where he got the code from in the software (Help:About or --version are good places), on the packaging, and on the Web site.
As for patent clauses, I can't comment on exact wording; however, since in this new license we are not requiring the vendor to release his new source, it would be fair to lay down the following conditions about patents:
Vendors may include patented technology in derivative works if and only if they are licensed to use such patents
Vendors may release source code to derivative works using patents they own the rights to; however, by doing so, they are granting an irrevocable, universal license allowing anyone to freely use those patents released in source form
I believe this license would be most fair to vendors of derivative works and to open source developers at the same time. Perhaps someone should get one together and have a lawyer look over it; I'll pass it by the FSF. The title "BSDM" (BSD/Moser) would be appropriate, since it's my idea.:)
Slashdot Mirror
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use. The GPL doesn't keep commercial entities from suing you; it keeps them from adding to your code without giving it back.
Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX. In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source, meaning you must give your work to the public because you based it on somebody else's work.
In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes. In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data; but leave the rights of any third party to their intellectual property in their hands if they choose to augment your software with it.
I believe that Open Source Software would be much easier for the industry to accept (and sodomize) if we stopped trying to armtwist vendors into releasing their own IP and instead let them base their solutions off ours without fear of having their hard work taken away from them "For the Common Good" (Marxism).
To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors, we could reverse the original (later removed) non-advertisement clause of the BSD license, mirrored on OpenSource.com. The original clause is shown below.
Perhaps a suitable replacement would run along the lines of the below.
This would explicitly allow vendors to endorse their products by advertising that they were derived from an OSS product or from work done by a specific person in the community. It would also require the vendor to indicate where he got the code from in the software (Help:About or --version are good places), on the packaging, and on the Web site.
As for patent clauses, I can't comment on exact wording; however, since in this new license we are not requiring the vendor to release his new source, it would be fair to lay down the following conditions about patents:
I believe this license would be most fair to vendors of derivative works and to open source developers at the same time. Perhaps someone should get one together and have a lawyer look over it; I'll pass it by the FSF. The title "BSDM" (BSD/Moser) would be appropriate, since it's my idea. :)
Disclaimer: IANAL
Support my political activism on Patreon.